• aquovie@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I’ll never understand why we didn’t just go back to saying “trunk”.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      “Trunk” is nice because it fits with “branch” in the tree metaphor, but “main” does have fewer letters.

      • Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yep, the metaphor would be good if git was a tree but kt isn’t. It’s very rare to have a real tree branch merge back into the trunk. Would it even still be called a branch after merging?

        • Cort@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          20 hours ago

          It’s very rare to have a real tree branch merge back into the trunk.

          Not rare, but uncommon. Not sure if there’s a Lemmy equivalent but r/treessuckingonthings shows trunks absorbing all sorts of things including branches

          • Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 hours ago

            Yes, this is why I chose not to say that it was impossible.

            Perhaps the mathematical definition of a tree is wrong in stating there should be not loops, or should change to another metaphor.

            Hairs can split but never merges back again. Perhaps a split hair instead of a branch? We still trim or prune the leaves ends. What do you call the “trunk” of a hair?

            Edit: formatting

        • aquovie@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          If it’s not a tree, why call it a branch? Maybe branch doesn’t make any sense either. Maybe none of this makes any sense! Oh my God, what are we even doing here?!?! Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!